A question for anyone who actually visits the Dh.O., has D. Ingram publicly renounced some of his (above-quoted) views about Arahants yet? He should either publicly admit he was wrong, or stop calling what he teaches 'Buddha-Dhamma'. Is he not worried about distorting the Doctrine, and potentially misleading many people?

tiltbillings wrote:ydnrc, it would seem.

wdymbt?

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

IanAnd wrote:Alex, please pause long enough to put two and two together

I think you (and others) could be right. Anyhow, this issue is complex.

Personally, right now I am considering two different versions of arahantship.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?

I think it is. Dislike, disenchantment, and revulsion don't require anger or any other unskillful mental qualities. The path does involve renouncing mental qualities and actions that are harmful and unskillful, but I'd suggest that your phrase "push away or reject something" might be phrased in a more nuanced way as "relax one's grip on something" in order to learn how to let it go.

I also think it's reasonable to differentiate between (i) the learner who is still developing the noble path and (ii) the non-learner who has completed the path and attained fruition. The non-learner likely no longer needs to develop disenchantment and revulsion in order to induce dispassion, whereas the learner does.

Alex123 wrote:So in the sense of gradual path, isn't it possible to use dislike of defilements and laziness in a positive way?

I think it is. Dislike, disenchantment, and revulsion don't require anger or any other unskillful mental qualities. The path does involve renouncing mental qualities and actions that are harmful and unskillful, but I'd suggest that your phrase "push away or reject something" might be phrased in a more nuanced way as "relax one's grip on something" in order to learn how to let it go.

I also think it's reasonable to differentiate between (i) the learner who is still developing the noble path and (ii) the non-learner who has completed the path and attained fruition. The non-learner likely no longer needs to develop disenchantment and revulsion in order to induce dispassion, whereas the learner does.

I think you are right.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

taintless wrote:[*]The hardcore dharma movement places too much emphasis on experience as a validator, as opposed to faith and gradual practice.

Perhaps, but some of us within the movement, do not so much anymore. It's a mixed bag. Also,it seems no-one except those with opinions against seem to use the word 'hardcore' anymore. Doesn't fit the evolution of many of its past practitioners. It's now often referred to as the 'pragmatic dharma movement', though no doubt this term may irk some still.

[*]The hardcore dharma movement renders the path "goal-less" and useless. At least for myself and others (who may not be as public as they once were) it is the end of all mental dissatisfaction/stress as subtle and refined as it gets.

Some seem to adhere to this idea. I know of others who don't. I certainly don't.

Yeh, it's a mixed bag these days. Not everyone agrees on interpretations for this and that concept, and some of us openly and non-aggressively disagree with Daniel as well. We still get along though.

[*]The hardcore dharma movement demoralizes and secularizes the path.

Not my experience. But it may be yours, so may be a valid argument. What it has primarily done for myself is forced much experimentation and results and made further progress in discernment, dispassion, and letting go of much mental dissatisfaction possible.

[*]The adherents of the hardcore dharma movement are method and technique obsessed.

Yeh, a little. But it is a movement, and often movements start with a big bang then start dispersing causing different projectiles going this way and that. Not everyone is 'obsessed'.

Concerning sila, though it may not be talked openly about as other aspects of practice, it is a part of many participants' practice within the movement. I personally have always found sila to be at first a vital support for calming and establishing the mind in a practice towards more discernment. And with progress has simple become more so the default mode of the current baseline. It does need more of the spotlight though, and as the movement is still moving, shifting, changing, sila is starting to become more relevant to people's practice. Thenagain, it was always my understanding form speaking with many yogis over the past number of years, that sila was already simply a part of our practices from the beginning and it was simply more practical to talk of technique and methods.Many of us were already well established in other traditions where sila was already part and parcel of what we were taking as a given.

It seems that the main emphasis of this movement is "enlightenment" , and not purification (from defilements), and not liberation (from suffering).Perhaps this is where the main difference lies between this movement and "orthodox theravada".http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Actually I do not criticize the movement, and actually I enjoy reading your posts as well as the other followers of this movement.

tiltbillings wrote:Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant, and I never claimed it of her. Show me where Dipa Ma claimed, as did Ingram, that, to quote Ingram:

Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:1.Arahats cannot lie.2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.10.Arahats love forests.11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.12.Arahats do not really exist today.13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://ww.morpheusrising.com/arahats.shtml );return false;

ydnrc, it would seem.

I didn't recall correctly that she atained 4th path. She claimed to attain 2nd path, but we can conclude from this interview that she attained 3rd path, because Munindraji stoped her from talking about 3rd path, which can only mean that she attained it and Munindraji thought it wouldn't be wise to speak about it. About 4th path, I don't have information. But I believe the "emotions" mentioned in that list, if felt by the non returner, are felt by the arahat (with the exception of conceit, I believe), so the part about the emotions is true. In the interview you can find this dialog:

Do you experience anger at all? As soon as it comes, at the very start, I’m aware of it. It doesn’t get any nourishment.

What do you do when you begin to feel irritation or anger? Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

Do you still find yourself acting against the precepts sometimes? After First Path, I found I couldn’t intentionally do something which grossly violated the Five Precepts [the precepts lay practitioners agree to follow: to refrain from lying, stealing, improper sexual conduct, killing, and taking intoxicants]. If I did, it was usually a reflex action out of habit. I knew it right away, and I acknowledged it and asked forgiveness. After Second Path, right action became second nature. It seems natural to me now.

I think both views regarding the precepts are compatible, if we interpret the statements by both persons in a conciliatory manner. The bold was added by me and is the crucial word in compatibilizing both views of the precepts.

So points 1, 3, 4 and 8 are, in my opinion, compatible if we interpret what Ingraim is saying as denyig that the arahat is absolutely incapable of doing these things. 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 are just things that are traditional myths about arahats; I think we can agree on that.

In another excerpt of the interview it is said:

Sense-desire comes up a lot in people’s practice. Does it come up for you still? It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering—grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it—and that’s the way to overcome it. I don’t feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don’t go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path

From this we can conclude two things. One is the confirmation that she attained at least 3rd path. The other is that "There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience." This could conciliate points 2 and 9. 10 is not important. And 11 has two parts. The job part I think we can agree that it is a myth. The relationship part is possible if we accept point 2. Although it would be normal for an arahat to prefer solitude. I think that the spirit of this declaration of Ingraim is to state that the arahat is not absolutely incapable of doing these things, even though they naturaly tend not to do it.

Do you find common ground here?

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

No. Simply, there is a world difference between what Ingram (only one eye) has said and what Dipa Ma has said.

Ingram said: Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:1.Arahats cannot lie.2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.. . . .

Q: What do you do when you begin to feel irritation or anger? Dipa Ma: Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

Ingram is saying that an arahant can lie and that it is untrue to say that an arahant cannot lie or kill anything, which is vastly different from what Dipa Ma has said.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

IanAnd wrote:It is not so much that the arising of disliking or aversion can take place (as it most assuredly can, even in an arahant, who is confronted by a conventional situation which may seem to be unjustified, in the mind). It is about not taking it personally (i.e. remaining unperturbed that it has arisen; in other words, not minding that it has arisen, thus not causing one dukkha!). Through insight into "things as they are" one simply observes the arising of conventional reactions (mental processes) without becoming part of the reactions. In other words, one observes: "Oh, look! A reaction has arisen! How quaint. In the meantime, I remain unperturbed [by its arising]!" See?

No, I don't see that at all. The suttas say that passion, aversion, and delusion are not subject to arising for an arahant.

"And how is a monk well-released in discernment? There is the case where a monk discerns, 'Passion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' He discerns, 'Aversion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' He discerns, 'Delusion is abandoned in me, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.' This is how a monk is well-released in discernment.

A distinction without a difference. No accounting for differences in perception (meaning perhaps you misperceive my description). I guess you'll just have to practice real hard and find out for yourself.

Last edited by IanAnd on Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

manas wrote:A question for anyone who actually visits the Dh.O., has D. Ingram publicly renounced some of his (above-quoted) views about Arahants yet? He should either publicly admit he was wrong, or stop calling what he teaches 'Buddha-Dhamma'. Is he not worried about distorting the Doctrine, and potentially misleading many people?

tiltbillings wrote:ydnrc, it would seem.

wdymbt?

You do not recall correctly. These abbreviations are a pain in the tookus.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:Dipa Ma never claimed to be an arahant, and I never claimed it of her. Show me where Dipa Ma claimed, as did Ingram, that, to quote Ingram:

Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:1.Arahats cannot lie.2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.10.Arahats love forests.11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.12.Arahats do not really exist today.13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://ww.morpheusrising.com/arahats.shtml );return false;

ydnrc, it would seem.

I didn't recall correctly that she atained 4th path. She claimed to attain 2nd path, but we can conclude from this interview that she attained 3rd path, because Munindraji stoped her from talking about 3rd path, which can only mean that she attained it and Munindraji thought it wouldn't be wise to speak about it. About 4th path, I don't have information. But I believe the "emotions" mentioned in that list, if felt by the non returner, are felt by the arahat (with the exception of conceit, I believe), so the part about the emotions is true. In the interview you can find this dialog:

Do you experience anger at all? As soon as it comes, at the very start, I’m aware of it. It doesn’t get any nourishment.

What do you do when you begin to feel irritation or anger? Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

Do you still find yourself acting against the precepts sometimes? After First Path, I found I couldn’t intentionally do something which grossly violated the Five Precepts [the precepts lay practitioners agree to follow: to refrain from lying, stealing, improper sexual conduct, killing, and taking intoxicants]. If I did, it was usually a reflex action out of habit. I knew it right away, and I acknowledged it and asked forgiveness. After Second Path, right action became second nature. It seems natural to me now.

I think both views regarding the precepts are compatible, if we interpret the statements by both persons in a conciliatory manner. The bold was added by me and is the crucial word in compatibilizing both views of the precepts.

So points 1, 3, 4 and 8 are, in my opinion, compatible if we interpret what Ingraim is saying as denyig that the arahat is absolutely incapable of doing these things. 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 are just things that are traditional myths about arahats; I think we can agree on that.

In another excerpt of the interview it is said:

Sense-desire comes up a lot in people’s practice. Does it come up for you still? It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering—grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it—and that’s the way to overcome it. I don’t feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don’t go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path

From this we can conclude two things. One is the confirmation that she attained at least 3rd path. The other is that "There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience." This could conciliate points 2 and 9. 10 is not important. And 11 has two parts. The job part I think we can agree that it is a myth. The relationship part is possible if we accept point 2. Although it would be normal for an arahat to prefer solitude. I think that the spirit of this declaration of Ingraim is to state that the arahat is not absolutely incapable of doing these things, even though they naturaly tend not to do it.

Do you find common ground here?

Tilt,

Please read my post carefuly. You didn't understand it correctly.

Let me quote the part where she almost directly admits she attained 3rd path (after directly admiting to have atained 1st and 2nd path):

Sense-desire comes up a lot in people’s practice. Does it come up for you still? It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering—grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it—and that’s the way to overcome it. I don’t feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don’t go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path

So we may safely deduce that she was a non returner. Regarding the point 8 (about the emotions an arahat can feel) apart from conceit, which a non returner still has, the remaining emotions she doesn't have, acording to the traditional interpretation. So when she says:

Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

It can only mean one of two things: the traditional interpretation of non returner (and arahat) is too restrictive, or Dipa Ma wasn't a non returner.

Before proceeding with the rest of the discussion, which is the option, if any, you think is more likely?

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

Modus.Ponens wrote:About 4th path, I don't have information. But I believe the "emotions" mentioned in that list, if felt by the non returner, are felt by the arahat (with the exception of conceit, I believe), so the part about the emotions is true.

The arahant has eliminated outflows, underlying tendencies, and fetters that the non-returner has not eliminated. This is what differentiates the third path and fruition from the fourth. The non-returner path terminates the secondary fetters of desire for sensual pleasure (kāmacchanda) and aversion (vyāpāda/byāpāda). The arahant path terminates the fetters of passion for form [existence] (rūparāga), passion for formless [existence] (arūparāga), conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca), and ignorance (avijjā).

Modus.Ponens wrote:So points 1, 3, 4 and 8 are, in my opinion, compatible if we interpret what Ingraim is saying as denyig that the arahat is absolutely incapable of doing these things.

Just considering Ingram's eighth point:

Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:

8. Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.

This is a dismissal of the very criteria that establish the arahant path and fruition. SN 38.2:

"Friend Sāriputta, it is said, 'arahantship, arahantship.' What now is arahantship?"

"The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this, friend, is called arahantship."

Or again, in terms of the ten fetters the arahant path and fruition terminates the fetters of passion for form existence, passion for formless existence, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance (the first five fetters having already been eliminated on the lower paths). If such emotions could still arise after the arahant fruition, the underlying tendencies would still have to be intact. And if the underlying tendencies are still intact, one is still fettered and not fully liberated.

Let me quote the part where she almost directly admits she attained 3rd path (after directly admiting to have atained 1st and 2nd path):

Sense-desire comes up a lot in people’s practice. Does it come up for you still? It is important to distinguish between sense-pleasure and sense-desire. There is nothing wrong with sense-pleasure. Pleasure and pain are part of our human experience. Sense-desire, on the other hand, is the grasping at pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This is what creates suffering—grasping and avoidance. Sense-desire comes up for everyone. It came up for me, too. When it arose, I knew it—and that’s the way to overcome it. I don’t feel sense-desire anymore. Sense-desire and anger don’t go away after First Path. They are weakened after Second Path and completely go away after Third Path

So we may safely deduce that she was a non returner. Regarding the point 8 (about the emotions an arahat can feel) apart from conceit, which a non returner still has, the remaining emotions she doesn't have, acording to the traditional interpretation. So when she says:

Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

It can only mean one of two things: the traditional interpretation of non returner (and arahat) is too restrictive, or Dipa Ma wasn't a non returner.

Before proceeding with the rest of the discussion, which is the option, if any, you think is more likely?

As to which Dipa Ma was? That is not for me to say. I read your post and I have read this one. Now, if she is a non-returner who does not feel sense-desire any further then that blows away what Ingram has claimed of an arahant. An arahant is by definition one in whom greed. hatred, and delusion have been destroyed, which blows away Ingram's claims about about what an arahant can do: lie, have sex, hurt and kill people, have lust, etc.

Anger is a fire, but I don’t feel any heat. It comes and dies right out.

While this is what Dipa Ma has said, it is worlds away from what Ingram has said.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

yuuki wrote:In his book, Mr. Ingram states that non-duality models of awakening are "without doubt [his] favorite of them all." As indicated by Mr. Ingram, there aren't specific moral changes in a non-dually awakened person's capabilities (i.e. not being able to lie) or experience (not feeling sensual desire). . . . .

Mr. Ingram's method of choice is vipassana meditation. I personally am a little hesitant to practice vipassana, because I can't find its source in the suttas and when I consider the method conceptually it seems that it leads precisely to the non-dual awakening mentioned above.

The late Austrian Hindu scholar and practitioner Agehananda Bharati stated in his book THE LIGHT AT THE CENTER that if you were a stinker before your enlightenment you would be a stinker afterwards, and this is from a man coming from a non-dual tradition. The Theravada and vipassana is not a non-dual tradition, nor is it a pluralistic tradtion.

Ingram is telling us a lot here. One thing he is telling us is that he disregards the Pali sutta tradition, which characterizes the arahant as one who is morally transformed. Moral transformation is something that is part of the practice leading up to awakening as it is a result of the awakening. He is also telling us that the basis of his “awakening” is not vipassana; rather, it is jhana, of which he claims to be a master.

Jhana experience has the capacity to mimic what one might think is awakening, the suppression of negative states of mind and jhana can give one “a sort of disassociation from oneself” or a disassociation from those aspects of oneself one finds problematic - a sort of “conversion experience” where one perceives oneself as radically changed. Jhana experience, especially spontaneous jhana experience, has that as a danger. While one, as the result of such an experience (or a cluster of such experiences), may now have a very different view and “understanding” of oneself, the stuff suppressed by the jhana experience(s) can - and will - come back, and thus we get this list:

Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:1.Arahats cannot lie.2.Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.3.Arahats would never do drugs or drink.4.Arahats cannot kill anything ever.5.Arahats cannot state they are arahats.6.Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.7.Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."8.Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.9.Arahats cannot like music or dance.10.Arahats love forests.11.Arahats cannot have jobs or normal relationships.12.Arahats do not really exist today.13.Arahats must work hard to maintain their understanding, and it is this that makes them unable to do so many things. http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What this list tell us is that while one may imagine oneself awake based upon a profound and supposedly transformative non-dual experience(s), one has to also explain away, in terms of one’s new self-image, all the stuff that comes back after the effects of the jhana/conversion experience(s) wears off.

“Mr. Ingram's method of choice is vipassana meditation.” Any methodology is susceptible to being twisted to meet one’s needs, which is why working with a teacher is important, but even that is no guarantee, which is why understanding that any experience is just another thing of which to let go.

As for the Mahasi Sayadaw style of practice, please take a look at U Pandita’s THE STATE OF MIND CALLED BEAUTIFUL, and Ven Nyanaponika’s THE POWER OF MINDFULNESS

I can't find its [vipassana] source in the suttas Do not confuse certain techniques with what is core to the vipassana traditions, which are found in such suttas as the Satipatthana sutta and the Bahiya Sutta and the Kalaka Sutta, and the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now."Ud 37 (4.1)

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

manas wrote:EDIT: Interesting how before meditating, I felt like expressing a view on this topic, but after meditating, I feel like a better option is not to say anything about it at all. So I've taken down that previous post I wrote.

In peace.

this describes most of my experience on this forum lol!

sometimes i even write out long responses while in the back of my mind figuring i'll delete it anyway before i even click "submit".

It seems that the main emphasis of this movement is "enlightenment" , and not purification (from defilements), and not liberation (from suffering).Perhaps this is where the main difference lies between this movement and "orthodox theravada".http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html.

Some may lean one way, some may lean another and may lean one way more so when things are seen in a certain way. The movement is a mixed bag. I've always been inclined towards purification myself. Goenka's voice still rings in my memory which has conditioned that inclination. Others may be more intent on seeing versus attending to. Most though, i must admit, those who seem more intent on purification rather than seeing what was not previously seen, are more intent on attending to nama rupa with the volition which leads to purification, and these people are less inclned to talk about it. The louder voices are perhaps newbies getting excited maybe. The movement is much more than daniel ingram or kenneth folk these days. there are a vaiety of opinions, approaches, and results.

A distinction with a clear difference. You say aversion can arise even in an arahant, the suttas deny that is the case.

If you wish to believe that, go right ahead. It's no skin off my nose.

Like I say, practice really hard and find out for yourself. Nothing clarifies the mind like first hand experience.

I also pointed out the following:

And daverupa's contribution, in reference to the Buddha and how he responded to physical pain (something that we all have an aversion toward): ". . . but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed."

The without a difference is: without becoming attached to it (meaning the aversion), and thereby bothered (creating dukkha for himself) by it. Or do you not see this distinction, also?